Should these 'Facebook crimes' be worthy of imprisonment?

[Levin]

A FIFTY-one-year-old Egremont man has become the latest person in the county to be jailed for posting racially aggravated online social media posts linked to national civil unrest.

However, looking at the detail, looking at the threshold for imprisonment in the UK. This is more than a little chilling!

Prosecutor George Shelley said Dunn had posted three separate images. The first one showed a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.”

The second also showed a group of men, Asian in appearance leaving a boat on to Whitehaven beach. This, said Mr Shelley, had the caption: “When it’s on your turf, then what?”

A final image showed a group of men, again Asian in appearance, wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster. There was also a crying white child in a Union flag T-shirt. This was also captioned, said Mr Shelley, with the wording: “Coming to a town near you.”

https://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/24513379.sellafield-worker-jailed-sharing-offensive-facebook-posts/

Updates

1 y

There's a short video about this particular sentence, here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJHLcLnQwdo

[Lliam]

I 100% support free speech.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

The disingenuous argument that you can't shout fire in a crowded theater was overruled in 1969, and banned speech was limited to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e. g. an immediate riot).

I think social media companies should be held to the constitution on this issue. Fuck their rights as private, non-governmental entities. If they don't like it, they have the freedom to close their businesses. Corporations are not people and their rights should be limited.

People do not have a "right" not to be offended. They do have a right not to take offense.

Some of the best movies have been banned because they might offend idiots. But idiots are not forced to watch movies that they find offensive.

Comedy has been harmed by "social justice".

Some classic books have been removed from libraries and schools on the grounds that they contained offensive language or contained subversive content.

Social media companies block and ban content, not because if is offensive, but because it doesn't not comply with those corporations' ideology.

Government censors and even threatens or punishes those who share content that is contrary to the official narrative.

The whole idea is to stop people from thinking or questioning anything.

False and dangerous information is freely shared and strongly pushed by government, msm and social media in an effort to brainwash and socially engineer the populace.

So the question is, who gets to decide what is and what is not "offensive" or dangerous speech?

Does being offensive have consequences? Absolutely. Individuals have a right to argue with, shame and even ostracize offensive people. They can block or 'unfriend' others on social media.

But I don't believe that government or telecom or social media institutions should have a right to regulate public discourse, aside from speech that makes threats or is likely to incite imminent lawless action.

[DrPepper12]

Every word is brilliant. TY

[RebelinSteel]

It really is a hard one to judge, everyone pretty much knows that saying shit we all know is either borderline against the law or against the law means you will run the chance of having a visit from the police. There does seem to be some really stupid ones making it to the courts, this does need to be looked at and reviewed.

There below is from a speech that Rowan Atkinson gave a good while back, a lot of things being reported lately are actually old news. It’s just social media passes it off as new lol

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xUezfuy8Qpc

Then you have the likes of Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross calling up Andrew Sachs and pretty much going on about fucking his granddaughter.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/transcript-of-russell-brands-prank-call/28452656.html

Then the huge amount of racism linked to football, with the monkey chants, the Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp posts about and to black players.

not sure if it happens in the US, however what would be the result if one set of fans made derogatory racist comments all match against a player on the other side, or say in the Tennis Open in the US, if people made derogatory remarks about a female tennis player, calling out her skin colour, her sex etc?

Then what would happen if you post the same on post match review etc.

Then what would above is how much freedom of speech is actually allowed.

[Kaneki05]

I love and 100% agree Rowan Atkinson take. And wish it was message we spread everywhere.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 however then apply it to what Ross and Brand did, should that be allowed? Call up an old bloke and go on about fucking his granddaughter?

[Kaneki05]

That's easy to solve. Everyone has the right to personal censorship, the same way we can block people on here. I don't think removing comments should be allowed, but blocking someone for sure.
So in this case block those ringing you right? And if said person tries to get around them been initially blocked then they should be done for harassment.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 not an answer, unless you are psychic you will not know someone is going to do that shit.

Should Ross and Brand be allowed to call up an old guy and tell him about fucking his granddaughter?
This is not about after it happens but the bit of should it be allowed in the first place?

It’s a yes or no answer really.

[Kaneki05]

It's the best answer we've got. You can't just pre-ban everyone from freedom of speech that would be crazy. You just block them afterwards and move on.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 I am asking you. Should you be allowed to call up an old guy and talk about fucking his daughter?
Yes or no

[Kaneki05]

I already answered. If you don't know my answer from what I just said that's a riddle you can figure out. Though the first letter is Y to give ya a hint.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 see for me, I would say No it’s not the type of thing a person should be allowed to freely say. While you say it is okay to call up an old bloke and tell him about fucking his granddaughter, I believe there are lines.

So to be clear and avoid riddles, you have said you are fine with someone calling up an old bloke and talk about fucking his granddaughter.

How far does your moral compass go with being able to say what you like?

[Kaneki05]

Anything should be allowed to be said that's the point.
Now the consequences of such can be defined later on.

For something like that blocking them simply works they can't ring you again, and if they do that's when action should be taken as harassment as you are then taking further steps to breach someone's privacy.

If you start defining lines and pre-banning people there's only a few steps away from someone saying to you, that you aren't within their lines.
And what you going to do when it's the government saying that over you just saying a bad thing about the opposite party.

The only thing that should be line in anyway is a death threat. That's it.
We all know what that is, and that should be banned in any form.
But anything else becomes to subjective and controlling, and should be left to personal bans than such opinion not been allowed.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 so for those girls murdered the other week, for you it’s perfectly fine someone calling the parents up and making derogatory comments?

If the above will always result in arrest or similar, then it’s never free speech,

However since you are perfectly fine with anything goes free speech, I guess you don’t care about others. Fair enough, for me I believe there does need to be a line where you automatically answer for what you say. It’s well beyond gay horses.
Also you being okay with racists being given free reign I don’t agree with, but you are fine with it.

[Kaneki05]

It's not about been 'fine' with it. It's about there is nothing you can do about it until after the fact.
Unless your suggestion is to arrest people based on any comments they make and somehow beforehand? You can't stop someone from doing that.
The best thing we can do is block them, and if they do it again have them arrested for harassment.

But if you agree we should arrest them right away then I suppose your anti-freedom of speech and I really hope for your sake the government don't one day decide what you said is worthy been arrested for right away.
Because then you'll know I am right but had to find out the hard way.
Meanwhile if some idiot rang me saying that stuff I would be mad but I would block them problem solved don't need to be anymore than that unless if they want to make it so.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 no I am not anti freedom of speech, I have said there needs to be a line, we have laws and if you break them, then you get to do prison time, or lose your job or similar. The hard bit is defining what the punishment should be.
If a company has a racist working for them and posts racists posts which are made public and it’s known the company he works for, the company then loses money. Freedom of speech says he should not lose his job. In reality, likely any place he would be fired.

[Kaneki05]

Did he get arrested? Was that the government breaching his right to say it?
No. Then that's perfectly fine.
The government should only have a say in actual death threats and harassment.
Anything else should not be touched and left up to people personally avoid such people and companies if they want not hiring such people.

Freedom of speech does not apply to you must like or accept what they said not at all. But it does apply they shouldn't be arrested for it.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 so why did the Americans want to have hate preachers sent to the US, it was a conversation today at work. It seems a bit of double standards at times lol.

[Kaneki05]

I don't know I am not aware to what you on about. Or what that has to do with my point.

All I know is we are getting into crazy times where if I said I dislike Islam or Christianity I could be arrested. Like my crazy mother who said to me 'You can't say you hate vegans that's hate speech and is illegal over here.'
And the bad part is she's somehow right. I also hate sexists but bet you I won't be arrested for that one.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 short version people pigeon pick freedom of speech stuff, the Americans are all ‘we 100% value freedom of Speech’ , some one comes out with Hate stuff against the US and they want them extradited.
I fully agree some of the recent ones have been stupid, however some of those coming out with it should just be removed from society, they contribute nothing but take plenty.

[Kaneki05]

Sadly it's a not thing we can be allowed to do that with though. Once it becomes subjective based on what should be removed it's whom is that up to?
And who makes that choice?

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 well the US government made that decision, also free speech for everyone is a relatively new thing in the US.

[Kaneki05]

It was founded from the very start. Though it is true that in the past it's questionably been implemented, it was in the law but it actually been used was another question.
I do know though the founding fathers for sure wanted it.
Freedom of speech on a whole is a new thing really, England obviously didn't have it back in the day when you would be locked for saying your gay or against Christians.
But this whole old time things needs to be done with.

[RebelinSteel]

@Kaneki05 yeah being black or a woman did not really come with freedom of speech I guess, it’s very selective. Mainly white males historically

[rachel776]

Clarification

OhLongJohnsoning said in a dm to me, "Facebook, is not publicy (sic) traded. It's not protected, you dumbass," and then blocked me.

Though irrelevant to this argument, Facebook IS publicly traded, it went public in 2012 and is now traded, along with other products such as Instagram, as Meta.

I had said on this post, which has disappeared completely, including all of the posts by OhLongJohnsoning, the free speech issue was not that Facebook had censored someone's post, but that the person had been arrested for posting it, so, the government arresting someone for what they said, which is what Rowen Atkinson is saying, very clearly, in the video. The police are agents of the government, it all comes under the heading of state action.

It could be argued the censorship by Facebook is also a free speech issue because social media, because of their size and ability to have a chilling effect on speech, are considered to be quasi-governmental agencies, in the same way something like utility companies are.

I understand it is different in the U. K. than the U. S. but the principles are generally the same.

But the points OhLongJohnsoning was arguing were, that police aren't the government because they are the city and not the federal government, which is manifestly not true or even cogent; and that, because it involved Facebook, a company, it did not involve issues of free speech.

Wrong. Again, it wasn't the involvement of Facebook, but the involvement of the police in arresting the person who made the post, that made it a free speech issue. The government police took away the person's freedom for something he said.

[D_Bone_Steak]

That country is so fucked.

It's like if we invaded country X, but instead of Elites of X and the leader of X fighting back, they just give us special rights and privileges over his own working class people. Complete with a 2 tier justice system and everything. I'm sure country X's citizens would just love housing prices going up because we overload the demand for housing, taxes going up to pay us our welfare and benefits that we never paid into, and they'd love the rape and violent crimes we'd do to them. Doesn't it just sound fantastic!!! Oh and then some want to shit talk about us... ha ha, their leadership throws it's own in jail for it and we get to keep doing what we do. Naw what I'z sayin dog...

I'm being sarcastic and I cringe a bit, because our country has been voting it's way to becoming just like that one. If Cumsmella wins here, that's we'll be on track to be even more like that.

[NamerOfStars]

Why on Earth are juries voting to convict these people? They ARE voting to convict them, right? That whole "No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, or in any other way destroyed except by the lawful judgement and consent of his peers" thing is still in effect, isn't it?

[Levin]

These people are entering guilty pleas so I'm presuming most of these processes are not taking place.

[NamerOfStars]

That's... well, not WORSE, but even more horrifying.

[Kaneki05]

No, and UK freedom of speech needs to become a priority it is crazy that people can be arrested over simple memes and saying trivial things online.
It would be one thing if it's a direct threat then yeah sure but it's not that, it's people getting arrested over opinions just others don't like.

Someone also got arrested for calling a horse gay... like what? Did the horse get upset and offended by that so he needed to be locked up? It was obviously a joke.

[Kaneki05]

Yeah people shouldn't also be arrested for simply watching the protests that's absurd to.
Nor should you if you are peacefully protesting.
It's crazy. The only ones who should get arrested are the dumb kids who are burning people's cars etc.

[DrPepper12]

As an American I'm going to defend the whole free speech thing. As far as I'm concerned they did nothing wrong other than be bigoted close-minded racists which at least in America you are entitled to be. Exhibit A: MAGA

[NathanDavis]

if you're told... don't do this or you will get jailed

and then you go do exactly that, and get jailed...

that's a bit deserving, yes...

[DrPepper12]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." TJ

[NathanDavis]

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes... " Taylor Swift

[Levin]

The guy at the top's crimes seem to be sharing some stupid memes. Pretty much something anyone could casually do.

I get the whole not inciting violence thing, which should obviously be a crime. But yes, this is beyond the pale.

I'm surprised anyone could justify this, lest they find themselves with a knock on the door themselves.

[NathanDavis]

well, you said it yourself...

he didn't go to jail for sharing memes... just I would not get in trouble if yell FIRE!! or BOMB!! at my house, would I?

you just said "you get it" that his intention is to incite violence, and everyone else, also knows that these times, circumstances are exceptional and not casual at all

if I were to yell FIRE!! or GUN!!! at a cinema, or an stadium... if I were to yell BOMB!! at an airport or inside the plane... yeah, I will get in trouble

now, I am not justifying such measures, but one thing is true...

if you were told not to do this shit, and you do this shit, you do deserve the shit that is going to come with it...

[Levin]

This has nothing to do with yelling 'fire' , or the actual reasonable crime of inciting violence (although I don't agree with the sentencing).

On the basis of that article he went to jail for sharing some memes.

Did you even read it?

[NathanDavis]

that's just you and others trying to minimize things for convenience...

now, the question is... are you personally going to spread and share the same memes he did and the very same way he did it to get jail time?

are you going to risk it too? or... are you going to be smarter than that and refrain from doing so in the name of "freedom of speech"?

[Dargil]

There is no free speech in the United Kingdom. That's why there's a United States of America. And now Democrats are trying to suppress it. Just like King George did 250 years ago.

[dustybiker2]

@Dargil Maybe because the other side is showing less and less humanity when it comes to expressing themselves? Free speech is not a free pass to behave any way a person likes, something trump encourages. Nobody likes to be disrespected. It's the respect that makes a person a balanced adult. It keeps society balanced.

[Dargil]

@dustybiker2 actually Free speech is a free pass unless you are threatening others or denying others rights. No, you can't yell fire in a theater. And no, you can't threaten Joe biden's life. But otherwise Free speech is free speech. Hate speech laws are unconstitutional and after Trump is elected those laws will be overturned.

[dustybiker2]

Agree to disagree.

[Kaneki05]

@dustybiker2 By such logic, saying trump is bad is disrespectful therefore you shouldn't be allowed to say it.

[dustybiker2]

@Kaneki05 What I was saying was trump allows people to feel they can do what they want. Very different.

[Kaneki05]

@dustybiker2 Doing what you want, and freedom of speech aren't the same issue though.
We are talking about just freedom of speech here.

[dustybiker2]

@Kaneki05 Same thing in the context I am talking about. "He lets them feel like they can say and do anything they want." To amend or clarify.

[Kaneki05]

@dustybiker2 Those two things aren't the same though and putting them together to sound like it don't make much of a point But anyway you can believe they are.

All I know it's crazy people over here are been arrested for making memes, and saying jokes or making an opinion just someone don't like. And if England carries on this way we won't be able to say bad things about our Pms or law without been under threat of been arrested and ya know what that is?
Dictatorship.

[dustybiker2]

@Kaneki05 that is very different from a dictatorship. There is a difference between stirring and expressing. Civil and chaos. Drawing a line is not creating a dictatorship it's creating a balance that society can function in without fear of people becoming unhinged and burning everything.

[Kaneki05]

@dustybiker2 When you can't state your views on who the leader is of your country without been arrested that is exactly dictatorship.
And once again going back to the point by such logic saying trump is bad shouldn't be allowed.
If you really don't get this I have nothing more to say because I don't know how to make a simpler example to show you why this is bad.

[Dargil]

@dustybiker2 ** looking for "disrespect", "showing less and less humanity when it comes to expression" and "keeping society balanced" laws and notations in the Constitution. Here. I found it. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." WHOOT, THERE IT IS!

[Dargil]

Owning a kitchen knife is a free pass to murder. Lets regulate them and jail people for owning them.

[Dargil]

@Kaneki05 I missed that!

[dustybiker2]

My boiled down point is.. you support free speech you support bullies. There has to be control somewhere or the balance if society falls apart. Misinterpreting the constitution is no excuse to selfish want to say and do what a person wants to say and do, it is not a free pass. Done. Enjoy gentlemen.

[dustybiker2]

*of..

[Kaneki05]

@dustybiker2 Okay then you shouldn't be making this opinion right here by your own logic.

[Dargil]

@dustybiker2 I unconditionally support free speech except where is regulated by Constitutional law.

[dustybiker2]

@Kaneki05 I can't help if you don't pay attention.

@Dargil I can see that. Was curious what your thoughts would be.

[Kaneki05]

@dustybiker2 By your logic you say freedom of speech should be controlled at the moment you are not been so.
Therefore anything your saying right now is according to you supporting bullies, as what you are saying right now is not been controlled nor regulated.

Lucky no one actually wants this and if you really thought about it you wouldn't want it to be controlled or regulated like if you ever experienced this been done to you, you would change your words right away.
But it's always those who don't have to worry about the consequences of their own words who can't figure this out.

[Dargil]

@Kaneki05 And before up you know it, we will get a flood English speaking refugees, by golly, just like in 1607 and 1620.

[Kaneki05]

@Dargil I mean Americans have the same issues so I don't know where I would go lol.

[Juxtapose]

She is a coward who blocked me.

[dustybiker2]

@Kaneki05 My thoughts were not difficult to understand but yet you continue to attempt to warp them simply because you disagree. Give up already. You know exactly what I said.

[Kaneki05]

@dustybiker2 I know what you said and you can say I am warping them all you want but I am simply using your logic of their needs to be control and if that applied to what you thought I know your opinion would change on a dime.

Tell me I am wrong but it's easy to say that when not in such position ain't it?

[missindiana93]

Nope.

[noohair]

I am lucky to live in the USA.

[gorydetails]

The UK sucks.